There’s more than one way to skin a cat and there’s more than
one way to fund social innovation. As
Rick Cohen of Nonprofit Quarterly details in his piece, Social
Impact Bonds: Phantom of the Nonprofit Sector, bipartisan support of Social
Innovation Bonds has been seen in the Senate and the enthusiasm in the U.S. has
spread from political offices and think tanks in DC to several cities and
states. This is despite some
reservations about the unproven benefits of implementing SIBs.
SIBs are noted for financing solutions to scale without
putting public budgets at risk. However,
as noted in a brief
write-up by McKinsey, the overall structure of a SIB involves multiple
actors that each come with a cost, so despite shifting the risk the overall
cost becomes more expensive. In
September 2010, an organization called Social Finance UK launched the first
SIB. Since then, there has been much
discussion about the possibility of launching in the US.
This made me curious about the SIB conversation in
Pittsburgh. There is evidence online of
SIBs being brought up in several public conversations. At the Pittsburgh Nonprofit Summit in 2011,
representatives of the McCune Foundation facilitated a presentation on SIBs
with speakers from the Growth Philanthropy Network and the Nonprofit Finance
Fund. The Powerpoint from that
presentation included information about SIB structures and feasibility issues
and can be accessed
in full here.
A Subcommittee Report from Mayor Peduto’s transition period
into office also summarizes a recommendation titled “Applying Social
Impact Bond to Early Education Initiatives”. This may have been reflective of interest from
other areas of the state as this CNBC
article illustrates. The CNBC piece discusses
Pennsylvania Governor Tom Wolf’s handling of state proposals for the
implementation of SIBs with involvement from Goldman Sachs.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.